In Shrodinger's cat, it seems our ignorance of the cat's state of existence places the cat in superposition of being in both states simultaneously. But since all of us exist in a state of not knowing when and how we are going to die, does that mean we also exist in superposition?
Asked
Active
Viewed 1,389 times
-2
-
Technically, we are in a superposition since according to quantum mechanics everything is. But for all practical purposes this is negligible because we are macroscopic. Confusing knowing and not knowing things with quantum superpositions is a common error discussed on Physics SE, see [Is my baby's gender an example of Schrodinger's cat?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/295047/65263) One can be uncertain about things in perfectly classical ways. – Conifold Jul 24 '17 at 23:12
-
Ummm...I'm not familiar with any proposition in quantum mechanics holding that everything is in a state of superposition and I'm fairly certain there is a substantial difference between not knowing and being incapable of knowing. – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 23:17
-
One can be incapable of knowing in perfectly classical ways as well, this is called verification-transcendent truths. What Aristotle did on his 17-th birthday is one of them, so is anything about entities that are causally disconnected from our world. On superpositions see [Zurek's Decoherence, chaos, quantum-classical correspondence, and the algorithmic arrow of time](https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9802054) – Conifold Jul 24 '17 at 23:27
-
@Conifold A minor technicality (which may help John out): everything is *not* "in a superposition," but rather QM states that everything can be described by a universe-wide wave function whose equations have the property of superposition. The only reason to take a step further and state that we "are in a superposition" is if you have already tried to use an interpretation to jump the gap into classical thinking by defining "we" as separate from the rest of the universe's wavefunction. (although MWI may argue that the difference is splitting hairs) – Cort Ammon Jul 24 '17 at 23:43
-
Perhaps a more interesting question to play with might be what is the definition of "knowing" if one models one's self as a superposition of quantum states. The easy definitions of "knowing" require a level of classical certainty that's hard to achieve if you assume everything is defined by quantum mechanics. – Cort Ammon Jul 24 '17 at 23:44
-
@CortAmmon "In a superposition" as with the Schrodinger's cat. There is no need for metaphysical "universe's wavefunction", QM applies to finite systems we are outside of. Zurek analogizes the cat to the Solar system: "*in the case of the cat it was possible to entertain the notion that the (admittedly preposterous) final superposition of dead and alive cat could be avoided if the process of measurement was properly understood. This “way out” is no longer available in the case of celestial bodies we are discussing*". He then explains how decoherence makes the effect macroscopically moot. – Conifold Jul 24 '17 at 23:55
-
The cat isn't in a superposition because we don't know if it's alive or dead, it's in a superposition because of its causal connection to the radioactive particle apparatus which is in a quantum superposition. If you put just a cat in a box you don't know if its alive or dead, it could have suffered a random heart attack and died once you closed the lid or it could be fine, but that doesn't put it in a "quantum superposition" just because you don't know which it is. We are not in superpositions *because* we don't know when we are going to die, that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. – Not_Here Jul 25 '17 at 00:01
-
Not_Here, if the cat is in superposition because of his environment, how does that differ from our living in superposition because of our environment, (including the very physiology of our own bodies here as part of that environment which contains life)? Certainly we have a causal connection to elements of our environment equally as random and far more numerous. – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 00:51
-
You said "But since all of us exist in a state of not knowing when and how we are going to die, does that mean we also exist in superposition?" We are not in a quantum superposition **because** we don't know when we are going to die. That knowledge has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. – Not_Here Jul 25 '17 at 01:24
-
That remains to be seen Not_Here, superposition has something to do with quantum physics and Shrodinger's cat is said...by some interpretations...to exist in such a state while in the box because we don't know if he is dead or alive at any given point in time during his stay in that box, so I am asking how that differs from our not knowing our duration in life or eventual cause of death. I'm not saying the question has anything to do with quantum mechanics. I am merely pointing out parallels in construction of the experiment with realities in life. – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 01:45
-
@Cort. Just thinking, earlier you said, "QM states that everything can be described by a universe-wide wave function whose equations have the property of superposition". Are we not part of that universe wide wave function? – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 01:53
-
No it does not remain to be seen, my guess is that you don't have a background of any higher education in quantum mechanics. If you are not asking about quantum mechanical superposition then using an analogy with Schrödinger's cat is the worst thing you can do because it is not an actual analogy. That's like saying communism is analogous to capitalism because the word economy shows up in conversation about both of them. Putting the quantum example in your question makes it seem like you're asking about a quantum superposition which is why everyone is responding so negatively to your question. – Not_Here Jul 25 '17 at 01:56
-
@JohnNotwen The statement "we are part of that universe wide wave function" is true **if** you assume quantum mechanics is a true theory which describes the entire physical universe perfectly **and** you assume that we do not have any non-physical element. When exploring metaphysics, those assumptions do need to be treated carefully. For example, if such assumptions held, the first thing I'd ask is for you to define what it means to "know" something. It turns out to be quite tricky. – Cort Ammon Jul 25 '17 at 02:03
-
2And to Not_Here's defense, you are calling on a *very* specific phenomena in a very demanding theory. The problem with hoping that people just accept your sentiment, rather than digging into technicalities, is that these tools you are wielding have *very* powerful implications that are ignored if the technicalities are not paid attention to. – Cort Ammon Jul 25 '17 at 02:06
-
That is true. Even the concept of life and death have to be explored when sifting thru the sieve of quantum physics. On the other hand, the universe appears to behave as though it is encumbered with a library of information dictating specific causal relationships. I personally think that feature qualifies as a non-physical element which might give me wiggle room for introduction from this vantage. – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 02:11
-
Then I *definitely* recommend reading up on the delayed-choice quantum eraser. If the universe appears to behave as encumbered by a library of causal relationships, the delayed-choice quantum eraser turns the library on its head. If there is such a library of causal connections, QM makes sure to tell you that the ones you think you knew were not, in fact, the right ones! – Cort Ammon Jul 25 '17 at 02:15
-
And I would embrace the un-predictability as another feather in the cap sitting in superposition atop my feeble head. Is QM predictably unpredictable or necessarily so? – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 02:25
-
I think the question isn't so much "if such a library exists" as it is "where it is hiding all its relevant data. What I mean is does this information exist as an embedded feature of our reality like another dimension or is it truncated within every particle/wave? Or maybe both? Does inanimate matter and energy have the power of choice? – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 02:43
-
1@JohnNotwen based on your comments, this is a primarily opinion based question, so it's not really appropriate for the format of this site. Here some examples so that you can make your question more objective: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1210/in-which-way-does-quantum-mechanics-disprove-determinism and https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/32828/has-quantum-mechanics-destroyed-the-fundaments-of-logical-reasoning – Alexander S King Jul 25 '17 at 04:11
-
@Alexander: Based on the four answers to my question, each was clearly an opinion based response. But we live in an imperfect world and have barely scratched the surface of what's to be known about that world. The quality of exchange in this format was excellent and I came away from the experience well satisfied that my position on the matter stands unrefuted. I congratulate each and every participant. Until we meet again... – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 12:46
-
1@JohnNotwen thanks. I congratulate on your ability to emulate [the Deepak Chopra quote generator](http://wisdomofchopra.com/). – Alexander S King Jul 25 '17 at 14:56
4 Answers
1
The Shrodinger's cat is a thought experiment. In QM there are several interpretentions and some of these does not require the "collapse of the wave function". So QM is an established theory of the quantum level but it is not a completed theory so the hypothesis that we may derive from each interpretention are nothing else than hypothesis without any real value. So yes according to an interpretantion of QM we exist in superposition but this is an ampty idea in essense.
Frida Kahlo
- 31
- 3
-
Why is it an empty idea in essence? I kinda like the idea of existing in superposition. That might be the only reference to "super" I ever get to apply to myself... – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 22:06
-
1
-
I think Frida talks that such ideas lead to absurd ideas, without any evidence to experience, and without any value at all. You can also imagine that you are a pink elephant. We can call this Shrodinger's elephant – John Am Jul 24 '17 at 22:14
-
We can also look at the significant role ignorance plays out in even the most mundane confrontations in life. I'm not sure I could resist the temptation to know my precise time and cause of death. Could you? So is it the case that sometimes even ignorance can be a good thing? – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 23:05
1
Let's assume your interpretation of quantum mechanics for the sake of the argument.
The cat is in a superposition because we do not know if it is alive or dead. Now you don't know when and how your future self will die, so it's your future self, not you now, that could be in a superposition by this standard.
Also, note that not everything we don't know about is in a superposition, because someone else might know about it (again, following your interpretation of quantum mechanics). So if someone in the future knows how and when you die, then your future self is not even in a superposition.
You could reply that future observers don't exist yet, so that nobody actually knows when and how you will die. But if you follow this line, your future self doesn't exist either, so is not in a superposition.
So any way you think about it, the answer is: no, from the fact that you don't know when you will die does not follow that you're in a superposition.
Quentin Ruyant
- 5,830
- 16
- 29
-
Actually I know more about Shrodinger's cat, in reference to death, than I know about myself. I know I am alive now. We know Shrodinger's cat was alive when placed in the box. We also know the cat is in a situation that is contingent on atomic delay, which is entirely random. I don't know what my future cause of death is or when. If the cat dies we already know why. So it seems like, if anything, I exist more in a state of superposition than even Shro's cat? – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 21:01
-
How does it affect my arguments? You're talking about your future self, not your present self, that's my point. You sure know that you're alive now, so you're not in a superposition dead/alive. – Quentin Ruyant Jul 24 '17 at 21:48
-
It affects your argument in the time tensor. Your every reference to the cat's state of affairs is and will always be future tense just like any reference to my existence. I mean, if I was now dead we wouldn't be having this conversation. Isolating one of the propositions doesn't address the remainder of the question, but I agree with your observation, even if its only trivially true. – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 22:22
-
I guess what I'm trying to say Quen is that we knew the cat was alive when placed in the box but that knowledge didn't change his superposition, after the fact of being placed therein, in the least, so why should it change ours? In fact, we knew more about the cat's chances of survival than we know about our own because we set up a random threat to his existence. – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 22:25
-
Well no, in Schrödinger's thought experiment, it is the *present* cat that is in a superposition. The future cat is *not* in a superposition because in the future, we open the box and observe its state which then becomes determinate. – Quentin Ruyant Jul 24 '17 at 22:27
-
Yes, we know that I am alive but not for how long. We knew the cat was alive but also not for how long. What is the relevant difference between not knowing if X is dead or alive or not knowing when and how X is going to be dead? In both cases there is an element of ignorance. The only difference is in content. – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 22:32
-
You're assuming that not knowing about something makes it in a superposition of state. As others noted, this is a dubious interpretation of QM yet I decide to accept it for the sake of the discussion. So my point is not about the fact that we don't know when we will die: I accepted this part. – Quentin Ruyant Jul 24 '17 at 22:37
-
The difference is that the cat is in a superposition only between the moment it's put into the box and the moment we open the box. It's in a determinate state before and after that. Now what is the equivalent of the box in your case? – Quentin Ruyant Jul 24 '17 at 22:40
-
I would say our environment and not knowing how long we will remain within that environment is the equivalent. Like you, I accept the argument of superposition for the duration of the cat's stay in the box. I, however, see no relevant difference between that box and our environment, in fact the cat has an advantage in that he has only one apparent immediate threat to contend with. – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 22:47
-
And I would add that, like the cat, both us and the cat are incapable of knowing what our most immediate threat to our existence is likely to be, of course, for different reasons. – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 22:50
-
I think you're making parallels where there's no. Our environment is not a closed box that someone will open. And I would add that Schrödinger's experiment only works so long as the cat doesn't count as an observer, so when you're pondering what the cat knows, you take it as an observer, and then the thought experiment doesn't work any more: the cat is never in a superposition of state. – Quentin Ruyant Jul 24 '17 at 22:57
-
-
I tried to move this discussion to chat but got a message saying I didn't have enough points to do so...sorry. – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 23:10
-
quen_tin: not knowing people are objects also, are they not? Are you certain our environment is not a closed system? Is there any other way than death to get outside our universe/reality/environment? – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 01:03
-
But if you accept that knowing people are objects like the others (that is, you reject dualism) then this interpretation of QM breaks. You have to select another one. And by your last comment, where you start to assume that not only our environment, but the whole universe is analogous to a box, I would say what you're after is a many-world interpretation. – Quentin Ruyant Jul 25 '17 at 08:45
0
I don't think this sort of attempted analogy between a physics thought exercise and philosophy works exactly, nevertheless it made you think about this question so it must have done some good. So to continue your analogy I would have to say that we have to make a good observation of our lives as we go along and in essence collapse our own wave function. In Sartre this would be through commitment to some purpose or interest (it can even be jazz music as in his novel Nausea, if memory serves), Heidegger would say perhaps our own way of being-towards-death. It seems to me you have noticed that human freedom offers so many at least theoretical opportunies that we could easily lose ourselves to ideterminancy unless we commit ourselves in some way. So you may be interested in the existentialist school. P.s. I can know with a high degree of precision when I will die if I take my own life, but I'm not willing to go that far for knowledge! There are just things we don't know about our future, we don't know but at least we know we don't know. I'm not sure we need the word superposition. I would not add extra words when we have enough words in philosophy as it is.
Gordon
- 1
- 1
-
Are you saying the answer to this question is existentialist? Is there no metaphysic involved in the tension between what we know, what we can learn and when we can learn it? – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 21:35
-
I would say let's separate the physics stuff from us. The physics exercise is what generated the question, it got us here on this interesting question...so now let us kick that ladder away and talk about how those indeterminancies in our own life may bother us, or not. If it is a problem for us, say a wish to be more grounded in a world with few certainties, then I may want to study say Kirkegaard, Sartre, maybe Heidegger to get their take on it. – Gordon Jul 24 '17 at 21:53
-
It doesn't bother me Gordon, it actually stimulates my imagination to explore the variables across these different but similar circumstances. A good follow up question might be, "if you could push a button and the facts about your future death would immediately appear on your computer screen, would you push that button, and if so, why? – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 22:35
-
That's right. It's simply not a problem for some people. I'm pretty much the same way, except I have to admit I have hit some bumps along the way of life and have gone running for philosophical mama, pacifier, blankets and everything else. Hey...any port in a storm. Would I push the button, No – Gordon Jul 24 '17 at 22:43
-
I'd like to think I wouldn't either Gordon but I'm glad I that's a temptation I'm not likely to ever have to face. I think I've tried every flavor of "rocky road" known to man and probably invented a few more along the way, so I can resemble. – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 22:55
0
The mathematical concept of superposition is not the same as not knowing. Schrodinger's cat is a frustrating topic for a novice in QM to explore because the whole reason Schrodinger invented it was to poke at the uncomfortable claims that the Copenhagen Interpretation required. Its job is to cause difficult questions to come forth.
As for the cat, the Copenhagen Interpretation states that the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead until it is observed. Observation is a very nuanced concept in Copenhagen, which is not the same thing as us knowing or not knowing. It is closer to answering the question of whether or not the information exists to be known or not. Until the observation, that information does not exist. This is different from a simple "we don't know if we're alive or dead."
Other interpretations have different solutions to this puzzle. Multiple-Worlds Interpretation, for instance, states that we can't objectively talk about the state of the cat, but we can talk about the combined state of the observer and the subject: "the observer's observed state of the cat will be consistent with the actual state of the cat."
Pure quantum mechanics, without the aid of an interpretation to bring it into the more classical-framed ways of viewing the world, would argue that everything is part of a quantum mechanical "wave function." This function can be decomposed into superposed states, if desired, but that's about as far as it goes. To explore your question in this realm, we would have to dive deep into what does the "we" in "do we all exist" actually means. It turns out that it can be harder to pin down than you might like.
It is a fun thought process to work through, but it's not the same as uncertainty about one's own death.
Cort Ammon
- 17,336
- 23
- 59
-
I understand where you're coming from Cort, only my question isn't whether we are dead or alive but rather does not knowing when and how we are going to die place us in a superposition similar to the cat? When the cat was placed in the box we knew more about his possible future state of existence than we ever know about our own, except in those unfortunate cases where we are told by a doc we are dying of some illness. – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 22:02
-
@JohnNotwen That's why I say superposition is not about knowing. It's a phenomena associated with observation in QM. It also has several properties. In particular superposition, by the definition of the term, implies that f(x + y) = f(x) + f(y) and f(ax) = a*f(x). If you don't have those two properties, the term superposition doesn't apply. It's a challenge that comes with using physics in philosophy: the physics terms are so extremely precise that they can be very hard to attach to any meaning except the one they were intended for. – Cort Ammon Jul 24 '17 at 23:09
-
You know Cort, I'm always reading and hearing about how different quantum reality is from our own yet I just can't see how we can live without it. The terminology, whether its mathematica or just plain English, lacks a certain color to it that I was hoping philosophy could redeem. I apologize if I've ruffled anyone's feathers herein so I will continue my quest elsewhere. – John Notwen Jul 24 '17 at 23:32
-
I'd argue that quantum mechanics has shown that reality is different from what most of us intuit reality to be. The lack of "color" you describe is likely because the "color" in life stems greatly from our intuitive understanding of the world around us. Myself, I find the "color" of QM to not be in the underlying QM model, or the interpretations of QM, but in the curious gap that occurs between them. However, it is very difficult to discuss the philosophy of this gap without a rather strong understanding of QM and its interpretations. – Cort Ammon Jul 24 '17 at 23:37
-
Something you could explore, to bring color back into the terminology, is to turn the "do we exist" question into a "what would it mean if we existed..." question. Ask "what would it mean if we existed in a superposition of alive and not alive." Explore the consequences of using the same principles as QM uses to explore this question of life and death. You may find that you can define a meaningful concept which demonstrates the behavior of superposition (those two equations I mentioned earlier), or you may find *why* superposition does not describe life and death well. – Cort Ammon Jul 24 '17 at 23:39
-
The color will come from your journey to either destination... or perhaps you will never reach a destination at all, finding it a quest that lends color to life until you die, which would be a fitting solution to the puzzle. – Cort Ammon Jul 24 '17 at 23:40
-
Now those were meaningful responses Cort. Exactly what I was seeking. If I'm not mistaken some aspects of superposition are based on what we are unable to know as opposed to what we simply don't know. I'm thinking the correlation between quantum and human is in this regard equally probabilistic even if the comparison isn't. But I agree, not all nuances of superposition are immediately apparent which makes the analogy less effective. – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 00:26
-
Superposition is a tool used in QM to predict results when there are things we don't know. It is used because there are things we can't know, and the underlying QM equations exhibit the property of superposition. However, it's also a tool that is used in other sciences to deal with things we know. For example, I use superposition to describe the behavior of an antenna emitting RF. I know everything I need to know about that system, its just the principle of superposition makes the calculations easier. – Cort Ammon Jul 25 '17 at 00:42
-
If the part that interests you is the fact that QM theorizes that there is information we cannot know, then I'd focus on that part rather than superposition, which is merely the tool we use to deal with that unknown. Too much focus on superposition is like focusing on the hammer and it's properties when the thing that was really interesting you was the nails that held your house together. – Cort Ammon Jul 25 '17 at 00:44
-
Cort would you think superposition not only encompasses all possible states but might even encompass impossible states such as being both dead and alive at the same time? Why do you think Shrodinger used a mechanism with a random factor as the cat's life timer? Couldn't he have just utilized a time released poison that some other unknown third party concocted such that no one would know its properties as in how long it would take to kill the cat? – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 01:23
-
You can build superpositions that include impossible states. If you do so correctly, the result will be that the probability of those states occurring is 0. The tool won't get in your way. As for why a radioactive isotope was used, the processes governing the decay of radioactive isotopes was well accepted to be a quantum phenomena. This permitted him to take a quantum behavior and try to apply it to a macroscopic object to see what happens. If he used a classical object to trigger the decay, the state of the cat would be deterministic but merely unknown.. – Cort Ammon Jul 25 '17 at 01:29
-
To appreciate the difference, I recommend working through the series of experiments starting with the double-slit experiment, on to the single-photon double slit experiment, and then onto the quantum erasers. By the time you get to the delayed choice quantum eraser, you will see why the QM that Schrodinger was working with is decidedly different than what we intuit in the rest of our life. Then you'll see why Schrodinger's cat is so odd, and yet not odd at all. – Cort Ammon Jul 25 '17 at 01:31
-
Of course, a box was used to isolate the cat and the quantum mechanism from observation. In reality observers, like each of us, have no such luxury as a box thus all of us live lives exposed to many quantum features of this reality, some that are equally as random and as dangerous to our existence. And, thanks to quantum mechanics, physics, and science many of those unknown variable threats are being reduced once we get a handle on their specifics. – John Notwen Jul 25 '17 at 12:27
-
You may like the Many World Interpretation. The Copenhagen Interpretation is very dependent on this concept of "observation," which is far more nuanced than its day-to-day usage may imply. For example, in the Copenhagen Interpretation version of Schrodinger's cat, the scientist is a classical observer, and all sorts of complexities arise from that. MWI gets rid of that, and the randomness, while still upholding all of the postulates of QM. The randomness is really an artifact of the Copenhagen Interpretation, not the underlying QM itself. – Cort Ammon Jul 25 '17 at 14:32